We present here new and interesting findings in Hebrew Manuscripts, and Genizah-
We welcome posts in Hebrew or English-
Send your short article to: giluy.milta@gmail.com-
Use this address for comments too

1/27/2015

An example of the inability of the printed Talmuds to portray the diagrams of Rambam and Rashi, as found in the manuscripts.

I would like to focus on the Yesod of the Mizbeach, whose dimensions are
discussed at the beginning of the Mishnah Middot 3:1 and again at the very end. The
beginning of the Mishnah) states as follows:

המזבח היה שלושים ושתיים, על שלושים ושתיים.
עלה אמה וכנס אמה, זה היסוד

This describes the Yesod being thirty two Amot square by one Amah high.

This states that the Yesod did not encompass the entire base
of the Mizbeach, rather it only ran along the northern and western sides
of the Mizbeach . It then “ate” one Amah of the southern and eastern sides. What that means, and how it looked is the
subject of this article. We will also delve into how the rendering of the
illustrative diagrams changed through the ages.

The Gemara in Zevachim 53B discusses the 4th Mishnah
of the Perek”. It begins as follows

“The Olah is ‘Kodesh Kodashim’….and its
blood requires two applications which are (like) four”.

During the ensuing discussion, it emerges
that the blood is applied in two corners which are diagonal to each other, and
they are the northeastern and southwestern corners. The reason it could only be
these two corners is because the southeastern side did not have the Yesod. The
Gemara then states:

The Olah requires a Yesod, and the southeastern
corner did not have a Yesod…why is this? Rav Elazar says because it was not in
the portion of Toref ( Binyamin), as Rav Shmuel Bar Rav Yiztchak stated ‘The
Mizbeach “ate” one Amah in the portion of Yehudah’

We again have this concept of an Amah being
“eaten” on a side of the Mizbeach, and we will now study the three main
opinions as to what that means,

The best summary of
these opinions and their sources can be found on the website of Shimon
Wolf. (www.swdaf.com
, and are being used with permission.)

The Rambam’s opinion is that the Yesod encompassed almost
all four sides of the Mizbeach except for one Amah on each side of the southeastern
corner. The Rambam states his opinion in Midot 3:2. Curiously he does
not state it in Midot 3:1 which most
fully describes the Mizbeach and where the concept of two sides 'eating' into the
southern and eastern side is mentioned. What I also find most interesting is
that the Rambam does not use a lot of words to explain his opinion but rather
relies very heavily on the diagram that is part of his commentary.

This is from
the first printed Peirush Mishnayot HaRambam printed in Napoli in 1492 which
was transcribed from an unknown manuscript which contained a diagram.

The Rambam states as follows “After they built the
Yesod around all four sides of the
Mizbeach )(or after we have explained that the Yesod encompassed all four sides of the Mizbeach )as
we have explained, they cut two sides until the Yesod encompassed the Mizbeach like
this diagram…and from this diagram you can see what is mentioned
here.” Nowhere does the Rambam state that only one Amah was left without
a Yesod on either side of the southeastern corner. He only points us to the diagram to
understand what he is saying. The diagram seems to indicate that there was an
Amah on the south and eastern side, but it wasn’t the part that was missing the
Yesod.

The Mantova edition of Kodshim printed in 5422 (1562) does a
much better job of illustrating the Amah that was missing from the Yesod on the
south and eastern sides.

I think this proves again how important it is for a diagram
to be accurate because understanding the Rambam’s opinion relies mostly on the
diagram.

The opinion of the Tiferet Yisrael is stated and
illustrated as a preface to his explanation of the third Perek of Midot. He states that after first
constructing the Yesod all around the Mizbeach, you take away all of the
southern and eastern side and it ends up looking like this:

You can see that his opinion is that the one Amah addition
to the southern and eastern sides did not wrap around those sides but rather
was a one Amah extension of the northern and western sides.

We now get to Rashi’s opinion which is explained and
illustrated in Zevachim 53b.

What is clear from the words of Rashi, and especially from
the diagram, is that the Yesod was complete only on the northern and western
sections of the Mizbeach. It then “wrapped around” the eastern and southern sides
for one Amah. In this way, three corners of the Mizbeach had the Yesod
underneath them. The text of the Rashi is as follows.

In the standard edition of the Vilna Shas, the Rashi is
accompanied by this diagram which Rashi refers to as “כזה”

Let us know trace the history of this diagram through time.
There are only two manuscripts extant which have Rashi’s commentary to Zevachim
53B. One is in the National Library of Israel and one in the Paris-Bibliotheque
National. According to the bibliographic data on the National Library of Israel
website, both manuscripts date from the 1400’s.

Here is the diagram in the Rashi manuscript National Library
of Israel Heb
4*13.

The diagram in this manuscript is incorrect in portraying
Rashi’s Shita. Rashi clearly
states that the western and northern segments of the Yesod wrap around the southern and
eastern side one Amah in length. In this diagram, the northern and
western sides of the Yesod extend in a straight line one Amah and do not wrap
around the southern and eastern side. (This is actually the Shita of the
Tiferes Yisroel )

Here is the diagram in the manuscript from the Paris- Bibliotheque
Nationale Heb. 325

This is correct as it shows the Yesod wrapping around the
southern and eastern sides. Neither diagram is drawn to scale, but at least in
both diagrams, we get the schematic picture.

The Soncino family did not print an edition of Zevachim, so
the first printed edition of Zevachim was printed In Venice by Daniel Bomberg
in 1522. This is what Daf 53B and 54A look like.

You can see that the Bomberg editors left room for the
diagram at the top of 54A but did not include the diagram. This was consistent
with all their editions which did not include actual diagrams, though they
often left room for them and said “כזה”[ There is one exception and that is the
diagram in Rashi’s commentary to Sotah 43B (2)]

Although the Berman Frankfurt on Oder Shas of circa 1698 was
the first printed edition to include most diagrams, it did not include one for
Zevachim 53B.

The first printed diagram I could find was from Frankfurt Am
Main from 1720. It looks like this

From then on the diagram did not change in subsequent
editions of the Talmud and is basically the same in the classic Vilna Shas.